So basically you don't think that Alcohol is beneficial to society, and therefore you think it's best if nobody has the option of consuming it. And you term that as progessive.

Right.

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

1) Had double pneumonia as a kid, as did my twin sis. Doctors told my parents to pray that we lived through the night. Dad said **** off, I'm an atheist, you ****s better save my kids, etc. Then prayed anyway.

And smalishah's avatar is the most classy one by far Jan certainly echoes the sentiments of CW

Yeah we don't crap in the first world; most of us would actually have no idea what that was emanating from Ajmal's backside. Why isn't it roses and rainbows like what happens here? PEWS's retort to Ganeshran on Daemon's picture depicting Ajmal's excreta

So basically you don't think that Alcohol is beneficial to society, and therefore you think it's best if nobody has the option of consuming it. And you term that as progessive.

Right.

I didn't term anything as progressive, it was you who did. I have my personal views about certain things and one of them is that alcohol is bad for society and society would be better off without it. But I choose to live in a secularist country like the UK where people get to decide what they want, and if people choose to drink than that's fine by me, but I'm not going to agree that drunk people lying on the streets after hours is something to be proud of or progressive.

Because all people who drink alcohol end up on the streets, of course.

And all people who eat food end up morbidly obese too.

A progressive society is one that doesn't try to impose any one group's set of morals and values over everyone's for no good reason, rather letting everyone do their own thing. Unless you have hard, solid evidence that banning alcohol has a significant net benefit for society - for which there is none, quite the opposite in fact - then trying to curb people's freedoms (yes, freedoms) in this way is reactionary to a T.

Because all people who drink alcohol end up on the streets, of course.

And all people who eat food end up morbidly obese too.

A progressive society is one that doesn't try to impose any one group's set of morals and values over everyone's for no good reason, rather letting everyone do their own thing. Unless you have hard, solid evidence that banning alcohol has a significant net benefit for society - for which there is none, quite the opposite in fact - then trying to curb people's freedoms (yes, freedoms) in this way is reactionary to a T.

What, you mean apart from the blatantly obvious one where it was actually tried in full?

But there's plenty of evidence to suggest that hardline cracking and limiting substances actually does very little in the way of limiting substance abuse (and occasionally makes it worse). Civil education is an infinitely better option if you want to stop binge drinking - but, of course, I'm sure the moral police will be happy.

But anyway, I am not advocating the banning of alcohol, since it is against civil liberties and there would be major problems associated with it. My point was that overall, in terms of a cost/benefit alcohol is not good for society.

But that goes to the very heart of the matter - permitting its usage is a civil liberty. Civil liberties are at the heart of a progressive society.

Within reason - laws against public drunkenness and education against binge drinking etc - me buying a few drinks to have with my mates should be perfectly legitimate and none of anyone else's ****ing business, more to the point.

So it's worthwhile curbing civil liberties in the name of saving money.

I see.

That is just one particular cost I mentioned. And yea corrupt police and politicians being in the pockets of mobsters during the prohibition era took it very seriously. I hope corruption has decreased since then in the US

But that's OK since it's progressive because we are letting people do what they want. Let's also allow them to walk around nude in front of our children and purchase Heroine from Tesco.

AN, my purpose in posting these pics wasn’t to debate what’s progressive or what’s moral, but rather to show that Pakistan has transformed since the Zia era in the 1980’s. But since you brought it up, I would humbly suggest that you are making a lazy argument. Being progressive doesn’t mean letting people do whatever they want. Being a progressive society means giving people the personal freedom to decide what’s morally acceptable for themselves and not forcing our own set of believes on others. If I were to reverse your argument, I could simply state why just stop at prohibiting alcohol? Let’s say I’m a Taliban follower and to me all movies, music, and TV should be banned, because it’s immoral. I also want to make it compulsory that men have beards, women wear burqas and stay in the house, and everyone is required to read 5 times Namaaz or they go to jail. Is that acceptable to you? If not, why not? Why is the imposing of Taliban’s set of believes not allowed but yours or mine’s is?

By the way, I’m sure you’d agree that banning alcohol doesn’t get rid of the “problem”. It just forces it to go underground. Even in Pakistan underground rave parties are common and alcohol is frequently consumed. I would rather that instead of people buying alcohol from suspect buyers (which also gives rise to the mafia that controls the sale of these beverages), the alcohol be legally sold for safety reasons. If you and I don’t drink alcohol, we don’t have to buy it. My whole point is that I long for the days of a tolerant and secular Pakistan. It existed once, there is no reason to believe it can’t exist again.